Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Page Digital

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First Page Digital

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dorsn’t realise WP:NCORP Laptopinmyhands (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, and New Zealand. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:45, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article is very self promoting with numerous references appearing to be the companies own media releases, albeit in other publications. In my view breached WP:PROMO NealeWellington (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 13:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the following reasons:

this article appears highly promotional in nature. Just one of many examples is this quote: "In recent years, First Page has achieved notable success, and as a result, leads a number of agency lists including Clutch, DAN (Digital Agency Network), Aspire, SEOlium, and The Manifest." This is not objective or free of bias. It is advertising masquerading as encyclopaedic content, and much of the article is similarly glowing in its description of services provided. Then again, promotional content is not always an indicator the article could be deleted, however on this occasion the entire article would need to be fundamentally rewritten.
Owing to the number of similar sources, I will not analyse each of them. However all I can see fail to be reliable or independent. Example - the first citation is a glowing profile describing the CEO as "revolutionary". Profile's of a CEO are not necessarily significant coverage. Other coverage more independent and reliable than the other sources, only trivially mentions the subject in one sentence.

Overall, this is a promotional article on a subject lacking sufficient notability for inclusion. MaxnaCarter (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:REFBOMBed WP:PROMO material and this company doesn't have enough of an impact at this moment to be notable. FalconK (talk) 08:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.